Domestic battery ordinance repeal to be taken up

Interim city manager Dan Stanley spoke Tuesday evening at a work session where the Topeka City Council discussed how to react to District Attorney Chad Taylor's decision to stop prosecuting misdemeanors committed in Topeka, including domestic batteries.

Related Stories

Interim city manager Dan Stanley hoped to see Topeka's governing body reach a consensus Tuesday on how to deal with Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor's decision to stop prosecuting misdemeanors committed in the capital city, including domestic battery.

That didn't happen, Stanley said after a work session Tuesday evening focusing on that topic.

Stanley said he will continue the discussion next week, when he will arrange for the governing body to hear the first reading of a proposed ordinance that would repeal the part of city ordinance making domestic battery a crime.

Such a move would force the district attorney to handle the prosecution of those who commit domestic battery in Topeka, according to the city attorney's office.

Council members John Alcala, Sylvia Ortiz, Chad Manspeaker, Bob Archer and Andrew Gray each indicated at the work session they could support repealing the domestic battery ordinance.

"If the D.A. thinks that we don't want to play hardball, I say we all suit up and play hardball," Manspeaker said.

Alcala said, however, that he also could support entering into a one-time arrangement for 2012 through which the city, the county commission and the district attorney enter into a "friendly compromise" to share prosecution costs.

Stanley said after Tuesday's session that he saw no clear direction from a majority of the governing body on what to do and would continue the discussion when the governing body next week hears the first reading of the proposal to repeal the domestic battery ordinance.

Governing body members generally act on proposed ordinances one week after they are heard for first reading.

Taylor announced Sept. 8 that he would no longer prosecute misdemeanors committed in Topeka, including domestic battery, saying his action required the city attorney's office to prosecute the cases his office would no longer handle, an obligation Stanley said the city isn't prepared to execute.

■ Seeking some period of transition while the city develops a program for prosecuting and providing services related to domestic battery cases.

■ Seeking to negotiate an agreement through which the city would pay some costs to help finance the district attorney's prosecution of misdemeanors.

■ Trying to force the district attorney to prosecute.

Stanley said the proposal on next week's agenda for first reading would pursue the latter strategy by seeking to repeal the ordinance banning domestic battery the council adopted as part of the uniform public offense code developed by the League of Kansas Municipalities.

Chief city prosecutor Craig Spomer said the city may repeal the section regarding domestic battery while leaving the rest of the code in place.

Spomer said Topeka police officers filing reports on cases regarding domestic battery have written them up "since the beginning" under the state statute banning that crime instead of under the city ordinance.

He said the city "for a lot of years" hasn’t prosecuted domestic batteries, as the district attorney's office has handled those.

In response to a question from Councilwoman Denise Everhart, Spomer said the city's repeal of its domestic battery ordinance wouldn't necessarily mean Taylor would choose to prosecute the cases involved.

Everhart asked Stanley about his statement reported in The Topeka Capital-Journal last week that if he had to pick from among the city's options, he would arrange for it to assume prosecution of the domestic battery cases.

Stanley replied that he would choose that option "in a perfect world that I could construct with infinite money, the perfect court and perfect support system," though that isn’t what the city faces.

Stanley also told the governing body he had had discussions with county officials and senses "there is a willingness to negotiate something that is fair to all."

"If the D.A. thinks that we don't want to play hardball, I say we all suit up and play hardball," Manspeaker said.

Who votes for these clowns?

This is not a game. The County Commission votes to cut the DA's budget by 10% in a department that is 95% wages. That means that people are let go and that means jobs don't get done. Because all the DA does is prosecute crimes that means that some crimes don't get prosecuted by the DA. So then it makes sense that if DA is not going to prosecute some cases the DA should start cutting the cases that the city can prosecute. What is the alternative? The DA prosecutes the misdemeanor cases and lets Stanley take on the murders, rapes, home invasions, and pedophiles? Sure. That's a great idea.

But now the City Commission wants Topeka to be the only city in Kansas that decriminalizes beating the ********** out of your wife? That will certainly draw in the good jobs.

This whole thing is stupid. The new DA comes in and re-energizes the office. Clears a huge backlog left by the last DA and greatly increases the number of cases that are charged and prosecuted in the county. The county leaders, led by Miller and an overwhelming fear of doing their jobs, arbitrarily picks a number and cuts the department budgets across the board. Then they pretend to be mystified that these cuts have consequences. The city, which has known about this problem since it started being discussed this Spring, then acts surprised that all of a sudden it has to enforce its ordinances. Finally we have some Transplant Stanley make a bunch of ignorant, half baked statements about laws he clearly knows nothing about before declaring that he would love to prosecute violations of the city ordinances - if only he could, but since he can't Topeka will just have to make beating your wife legal in Topeka (but not in Shawnee County).

I got an idea. We want crimes prosecuted, we want potholes filled, we want bangers arrested, we want shorter lines at the car registration office - we need to pay for it. And if we can't pay for it all then we either need to thoughtfully prioritize what services get fully funded or we need to kick in a little extra to cover the basics. We have clowns playing games and posturing instead of leading this community. It is time Topeka elected serious people to office who are prepared to do serious work.

WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT

This letter is to request that you take action to cut spending on pork barrel spending on certain TANF Title IV-D programs which represent $4 billion untraceable dollars that no one keeps track of. These funds meant for needy children were diverted and wasted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to non needs based programs available to all fathers engaged in the family court litigation industry---no matter how wealthy they are. These parents now ask Congress to take a stand to hold ACF’s defective leadership and the programs destroying families accountable by demanding the following budget cuts:

1. TANF Contingency Fund authorized under 403(b) Social Security Act for payment to States and other non-federal entities under Titles I, IV-D, X, XI, and XIV “to remain available until expended.” (p. 474)

Struggling parents want things like jobs, housing, education, childcare, and access to medical care to help them weather the current economic crisis. Instead, these hard working families are forced to invest $4 Billion in irresponsible, extortion based, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) programs that promote widespread Medicaid and child support fraud, protracted high conflict litigation, and bogus therapy programs.

Child support agencies deliberately withhold and mismanage billions of paid collected support, which starves children onto TANF and causes parents to be falsely prosecuted for nonpayment.

Good parents are being exploited, bankrupted, and emotionally destroyed while their kids are needlessly placed on the welfare, Medicaid, and foster care system rolls. Billions of dollars of child support remains unaccounted for nationwide.

These frivolous programs spend without restraint and direct money to places HHS cannot identify (as noted by the OIG and GOA reports on the second page.) There is no oversight. DHHS’s position is that once the money goes to the states, they are not responsible for oversight. Fraud is rampant, yet the OIG does nothing to enforce the laws to protect families.

90% of the parents paying child support are fathers. Using child support enforcement programs as a vehicle, these extortion based programs force fathers to elect between criminal penalties and inciting “high conflict” family court litigation to create a “need” for their own publicly funded services. These irresponsible programs cash in on the “incentives” by placing children in unstable homes, and then starve the entire family onto some sort of public assistance. We can identify no legitimate purpose for these programs and request that Congress take the following actions:

(1) Revoke or reduce funding to Administration for Children and Families (ACF) child support incentives, Access and Visitation (AV) programs, and gender based funding to child support agencies.

(2) End collateral child support/custody funding mandates.

(3) Overhaul Office on Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) on the federal level to remove staff with conflicts of interest and bias.

(4) Audit OCSE to find out where our tax dollars are actually going, and then implement rigorous transparency, oversight, and accountability measures on programs.

The [unlawful] programs are supposed to be ADMINISTRATIVE, but they used quasi judicial power to create, amend, and enforce court orders without judicial authorization. The agency does not provide due process, nor do they have to show you their files. Judges have to look the other way because if they object, they will lose their HHS funding, and at the same time the judge has to accept responsibility for the agency’s badly managed and even crooked interference when litigants are hurt.

On the author's family court case, the bills were inflated and no one would let me have receipts for services, without telling me or the judge, support orders were modified, documents falsified, and support enforcement would not let me see their files. Like hundreds of families I am aware of, this money was used to force my family into needless litigation which cost me tens of thousands of dollars.

In 2011, we ask why the Obama Administration inexcusably ignored the pleas of desperate hard working parents and doubled the budget for these pork barrel projects, starving them out of their home. It’s time to get serious about deficit reduction, and require the president to exercise fiscal restraint on programs which would target and extort families under the most trying circumstances.

This Government Accountability Office report recently came out which shows that these HHS grant recipients owe us struggling tax paying families hundreds of BILLIONS in taxes.

OIG STATE AUDIT REPORTS ON UNDISBURSIBLE ARREARS The more federal dollars were receive the less States collected in support. States refuse to distribute child support to "families first," and are instead keeping the money for themselves-without accounting for it.

The Office of the Inspector General found HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in undisbursed child support which was never accounted for when it audited the child support services programs from only a hand full of counties in approximately 30 states. There are only incentives to COLLECT support and put families on TANF, and NONE to actually disburse it to the children it is intended to benefit. When undistributed arrears were discovered, the OIG ordered the States to give 66% to the federal OCSE office, and allowed the State to keep the remaining 34% for themselves. And so the states deliberately don't tell parents they collected the money, then create "set up to fail" disbursement methods to retain the funds for the general fund:

• send checks to the wrong address, • illegal liens on accounts • create massive arrears, give dad the tax benefit, then garnish the tax benefit, • put child support it in trust accounts during litigation-that lasts more than 3 years, • retroactively abate arrears, then keep it for themselves without telling either parent.

When the OIG identified the embezzled funds, they did not help them find the children it was intended to benefit, the OIG instructed States to properly report…So the feds could have their 66%. This policy entirely lacks accountability or consequences for this fraud. Subsequent reports demonstrated that the problem has continued to worsen, and there are [still] no protocols and procedures in place to define, identify, and track these monies.

Healthy Marriage And Responsible Fatherhood Initiative: Further Progress Is Needed in Developing a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach to Help HHS Improve Program Oversight: www.gao.gov/new.items/d081002.pdf

•$500 Million Unconditionally Given To Activists: Operating under a deadline that allowed HHS 7 months to award grants, HHS shortened its existing process to award Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants to public and private organizations. During this process, HHS did not fully examine grantees’ programs as described in their applications, including the activities they planned to offer, and this created challenges and setbacks for grantees later as they implemented their programs. –P. 2

•Failure to Implement Uniform Standards, Policies, and Procedures: HHS uses methods that include site visits and progress reports to monitor grantees, but it lacks mechanisms to identify and target grantees that are not in compliance with grant requirements or are not meeting performance goals, and it also lacks clear and consistent guidance for performing site monitoring visits. –P.2

•Embezzlement and Fraud Was Likely Vastly Under Estimated: Moreover, we did not survey organizations that received money from grant recipients to provide direct services, subawardees. Since making the initial awards, 4 organizations have relinquished their grants, 1 organization had its grant terminated, and 1 new grant was awarded. There are 6 organizations currently pending non-continuation of award funds.

Child Support Enforcement: Departures from Long-term Trends in Sources of Collections and Caseloads Reflect Recent Economic Conditions http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-196In fiscal year 2009, the child support enforcement (CSE) program collected about $26 billion in child support payments from noncustodial parents on behalf of more than 17 million children. The CSE program is run by states and overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). States receive federal performance incentive payments and a federal match on both state CSE funds…The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) eliminated this incentive match beginning in 2008, but the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 temporarily reinstated it for 2 years….

In fiscal year 2009, the CSE program experienced several departures from past trends. For one, child support collections failed to increase nationwide for the first time in the history of the program in fiscal year 2009… Also in fiscal year 2009, the number of CSE cases currently receiving public assistance increased …Preliminary HHS data show that total CSE expenditures grew by 2.6 percent in fiscal year 2008 as many states increased their own funding to maintain CSE operations when the federal incentive match was eliminated…In contrast to fiscal year 2008, a different picture emerged in fiscal year 2009, when the incentive match was temporarily restored but total CSE expenditures fell slightly by 1.8 percent, which HHS officials told GAO was due to state budget constraints. Most states nationwide have not implemented "family first" policy options…because giving more child support collections to families means states retain less as reimbursement for public assistance costs.

Friday, September 23, 2011

The hour heated up in the Zeus Radio Studio starting with a discussion about the city of Topeka , KS decision to stop prosecuting domestic violence cases with my suggestion that the District Attorney obtain permits and go into the cemetery business. The city of Topeka is throwing victims' lives to the wolves disguised in sheep's clothing, more commonly known as the violent offenders.

The city is hiding behind the budget because frankly Kansas does not see intimate partner violence a crime.

The Shawnee County press release: September 15, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Dakota Loomis • 785.438.9449

Shawnee County DA’s Office and City of Topeka Working to Resolve Misdemeanor Case Filings

Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor and Interim City Manager Dan Stanley met today to discuss the prosecution of misdemeanor cases occurring within Topeka city limits. The meeting centered on how best to preserve public safety given recent budget cuts sustained by the District Attorney’s Office. Both the District Attorney’s Office and the City of Topeka are hopeful that an amicable agreement will be reached shortly that will be in the best interest of all Topekans. Discussions will continue over the course of the next few days and will focus on crafting a mutually agreed upon resolution that will ensure the efficient prosecution of all city misdemeanors.

# # #

Translation if your dog bites someone you will be prosecuted. If you spouse or significant other threatens or causes significant bodily injury, you are out of luck!

According to the National Coalition against Domestic Violence, current data, there are16,800 homicides (reported)attributed to intimate partner homicide per year and $2.2 million in medically treated injuries costing $37 billion per year!

______________________________________

Is Topeka Kansas in violation of their very own State Statues?

22-2307 : Domestic violence calls; written policies to be adopted by law enforcement agencies; contents. (a) All law enforcement agencies in this state shall adopt written policies regarding domestic violence calls as provided in subsection (b). These policies shall be made available to all officers of such agency.(b) Such written policies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) A statement directing that the officers shall make an arrest when they have probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed; (2) a statement defining domestic violence; (3) a statement describing the dispatchers' responsibilities; (4) a statement describing the responding officers' responsibilities and procedures to follow when responding to a domestic violence call and the suspect is at the scene; (5) a statement regarding procedures when the suspect has left the scene of the crime; (6) procedures for both misdemeanor and felony cases; (7) procedures for law enforcement officers to follow when handling domestic violence calls involving court orders, including protection from abuse orders, restraining orders and a protective order issued by a court of any state or Indian tribe; (8) a statement that the law enforcement agency shall provide the following information to victims, in writing: (A) Availability of emergency and medical telephone numbers, if needed; (B) the law enforcement agency's report number; (C) the address and telephone number of the prosecutor's office the victim should contact to obtain information about victims' rights pursuant to K.S.A. 74-7333 and 74-7335 and amendments thereto; (D) the name and address of the crime victims' compensation board and information about possible compensation benefits; (E) advise the victim that the details of the crime may be made public; (F) advise the victim of such victims' rights under K.S.A. 74-7333 and 74-7335 and amendments thereto; and (G) advise the victim of known available resources which may assist the victim; and (9) whether an arrest is made or not, a standard offense report shall be completed on all such incidents and sent to the Kansas bureau of investigation. History: L. 1991, ch. 93, § 1; L. 1996, ch. 208, § 3; July 1.

Below is the show I urge everyone to listen. Can a class action suit be filed in the State of Kansas for failure per the current statutes? It is worth investigating? In the coming months we will gather a team of legal experts to visit and review at the Federal level and the State of Kansas's "failure to protect."

Susan Murphy Milano is a staff member of the Institute for Relational Harm Reduction and Public Pathology Education . She is a specialist with intimate partner violence cases and prevention strategies and high risk cases and available for personal consultations through the Institute. She is also part of the team at Management Resources Limited of New York.Susan is the author of "Time's Up: A Guide on How to Leave and Survive Abusive and Stalking Relationships,"Moving out, Moving on, and Defending Out Lives. Susan is the host ofThe Susan Murphy Milano Show, "Time'sUp!" . She is a regular contributor to the nationally syndicated "The Roth Show " with Dr Laurie Roth and a co-host on Crime Wire . If you would like to schedule Susan Murphy Milano for interviews, please contact: ImaginePublicity PO BOX 14946 Surfside Beach, SC 29587 Phone: 843.808.0859 email- contact@imaginepublicity.com

On February 18, 2008, Barbara Sheehan knew her husband was going to kill her – not just some day, but that day. Throughout their 23-year marriage he had continually threatened to kill her, then her two children, and then to “go out in a blaze of glory.” And he had also regularly beaten, punched, slapped, kicked, tackled, pinched, spat on and thrown things at her, including a full pot of simmering pasta sauce. Over those years she’d suffered broken bones, black eyes, a broken nose and uncounted other bloody injuries.

But that day in February the beatings would finally end. That morning when her husband, retired NYPD Sgt. Raymond Sheehan, pointed the gun at her face and said, “I will fucking kill you,” for the first time in her life Barbara too held a gun. And moments later Raymond Sheehan lay dead on the blood-soaked bathroom floor of their Howard Beach home.

Today, 2½ years later, Barbara Sheehan is on trial in the Queens criminal courthouse, charged with second degree murder in her husband’s death. And the issue of police domestic violence – law enforcement officers’ battering of their intimate partners – breaks out of the silence and into the national consciousness.

Purple Berets’ Tanya Brannan is in that courtroom, covering the trial as a part of our national focus “When the Batterer Is a Cop.” For the next two weeks we will be your eyes and ears in the courtroom in the most important domestic violence trial of the day.

The Susan Murphy Milano Show, “Time’s Up!”

Thursday, September 22, 2pm ET

Claudine Dombrowski could very well be considered a “Wounded Warrior” in the fight against intimate partner violence. Fighting her personal battle against her abuser for over 16 years, she’s also taken her fight across the nation helping several other battered mothers who have lost custody of their beloved children to the very person who abused them.

Through organizing globally, Claudine Dombrowski, and other battered mothers, have founded American/Australia Mothers Political Party to bring attention and educate others. Through combining their online efforts across the globe, they are able to link together, not always physically, but by forming groups through the wonders of technology and carrying their message far and wide.

Barry Goldstein has fought battles in the trenches and the courtrooms in an attempt to keep battered women from losing their treasure, their children. He continues to work with agencies and educators and has joined his expertise with others in the battle against violence in the home. Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

BARRY GOLDSTEIN, attorney, teacher, author and advocate for women abused by their partner (and too often the courts) has written a book for women seeking to leave their abusers and for their friends, family, supporters and advocates. SCARED TO LEAVE AFRAID TO STAY Paths From Family Violence to Safety tells the story of ten women as they left their abusers seeking a better life. The book shows in these abuse cases how courts handle legal issues such as orders of protection, custody, visitation, support, marital property and criminal prosecutions. It tells about the resourcesavailable for women seeking to leave their abuser. Click the links to learn more about the book, author or to view frequently asked questions (FAQs). The book is published byRobert D. Reed Publishers and is available at book stores online and off.

Until recent years Civics, Democracy and Criminal Justice were only topics from a class that I was supposed to be paying attention to when I was in high school. Unable to see how any of it was going to really matter or have anything to do with my life, I opted to half-listen, paying just enough attention to catch the main concepts but spent more time passing notes, daydreaming and doodling the time away until the bell would release me from my imprisonment.

I got that a misdemeanor wasn’t as bad as a felony and figured if I just steered clear of both, I should have no problem. For those of you who were as interested as I was in high school about the criminal justice system, I offer you the following crash course before laying out what the newest alert is (so you can be as concerned about it as I am!)

While a misdemeanor is better known as “a lesser crime” in comparison to a felony the distinction goes just a tad bit further in that a misdemeanor is actually defined as a crime that could land a person in jail for less then a year as opposed to a felony that’s actually defined as a crime that could land a person in jail for more then a year.

Murder is unanimously held as a felony across the United States, but otherwise the definition of crimes occurs at the state level. So, for example, while it may seem that strangulation would be considered a felony (a more serious crime) it didn’t become a Class C felony (a sentence that can carry up to 5 years in jail) in Hawaii until relatively recently (2006). Prior to 2006, can you imagine being strangled then being told it’s “just” a misdemeanor?

Even more disillusioning is landing/finding oneself in the criminal justice system (that has very little resemblance to what you see on “Law & Order”). Actually, my brother-in-law (a corrections officer) and I recently ruined a criminal justice-related movie for my sister when we each piped up instinctually with “They can’t do that” or “That’d NEVER happen” comments throughout the movie and totally ruined it for my sister who was just trying to enjoy it for the plot and storyline. (Sorry!)

In real-life, what’s supposed to happen when a crime occurs is someone notifies the police about “the offense” (proper terminology) and then the police will do an investigation (talk to the victim and/or alleged perpetrator if possible, gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc.) the findings of which will all this go into a report. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say this is a misdemeanor where the alleged perpetrator is not arrested for whatever s/he’s been accused of. The completed report then gets forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office for review where the Prosecutor (called a District Attorney in other jurisdictions) will decide whether the offense contains enough merit to be prosecuted or not.

Here’s a critical piece of information that many don’t realize: if the Prosecutor accepts the case and moves forward on it, the case “belongs” to the state NOT the victim whose been wronged; the victim becomes a witness for the state/prosecution.

Why is this important? Because in many domestic violence cases where the abuser is ignorant to all this, the abuser thinks that the victim can “call off” the Prosecution or that the victim has the ability to simply “drop” the case – neither of which are true – but from his perspective what’s true is irrelevant; what she does (or doesn’t do) is. Can you see how this could shape up to be a pretty dangerous situation if an offense has occurred, the abuser HASN’T been arrested and then the Prosecutor decides to take the case?

Next step: court. This is where the abuser enters a plea of either guilt, no contest (not admitting guilt but not proclaiming innocence either) or not guilty to what s/he’s being accused of. If the abuser says “Not guilty” the next step is a trial where witnesses and evidence can be presented by the Prosecution and Defense BUT before the plea is formally entered a couple of “strange things” can happen…

The Defense OR Prosecution can propose a plea bargain where the abuser is afforded the opportunity to "plea down" to a lesser offense, ie: a domestic violence offense being reduced to harassment. Plea bargains can be offered for a number of reasons, but the long-term consequences of a plea down from domestic violence doesn’t work well in addressing or rectifying the problem of DV. If an abuser pleas down to harassment (for example) then there’s “no domestic violence” = no DV intervention services, the abuser will not reflect a DV history stemming from the offense and the record will not count the case as a DV one which can mislead the public in terms of misrepresenting the size of the problem (DV in the community isn’t as big of a problem as harassment is).

Similar to dropping the case, the victim has no say or influence over plea bargaining (so if you’ve had the courage to take your case “all the way” and have cooperated with the Prosecution, can you imagine how it’d feel to be told by the Prosecution that your case has been “settled” because THE ABUSER'S agreeing to call what he did to you "harassment" rather than DV? That instead of going to jail, the abuser has agreed to community service hours instead? But it could be worse...

How do you think it would feel as a victim if your DV case ended before it even started? That after mustering up the courage to report to police who dutifully submitted their report to the Prosecutors, that it was turned away NOT for lack of evidence or witnesses but due to lack of funding? (And how do you think your abuser's going to feel knowing that you turned him in, tried to have him put away but failed so now he's free to "talk" to you about it?)

Our criminal justice system was not founded upon dollars and cents and last I knew justice isn't supposed to be decided after a cost-benefit analysis, but Kansas has just set a terrifying precedent by telling domestic violence victims that their lives - and the crimes committed against them - aren't worth their state's time, money or effort. This is a sad day for domestic violence victims in Kansas and a day that I hope will never dawn here in Hawaii.

Friday, September 16, 2011

PLEASE COMMENT ON ORIGINAL ARTICLE! We need OUTRAGE to stop this political game playing at the expense of women.

Right now in Topeka Kansas—DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is LEGAL. Since last week’s decision of the County DA to stop prosecuting Domestic Violence in the city limits, there have been 35 Domestic Violence arrests that have WALKED with no charges!

The City manager is considering a repeal in the City Ordinances that Domestic Violence is NOT A CRIME within the city. http://bit.ly/nCxc5M

16 years after enduring constant physical abuse, the memories still shake Claudine Dombrowski to the core. She says, "I was beaten with a crowbar, it was a misdemeanor. I've had both my wrist broken and it was a misdemeanor."

When Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor decided to hand over misdemeanor cases, like Dombrowski's, to the city, she knew it would weigh heaviest on victims of domestic violence. Knowing the consequences a victim could face when the abuser is arrested, then released, she advises victims not to call the police. She says, "You, as a survivor, know how to survive. You just keep surviving. If you call the police right now, and God forbid you end up with the city, you might die."

Dombrowski says she's disgusted at how poorly survivors are treated after making the terrifying decision to call authorities. She says community leaders see it as, "Let's put these victims in with weed control and dog at large and parking tickets. That's how important you are to our community."

Dombrowski says the word "misdemeanor" has such a harmless connotation and wishes people knew the horrible actions hiding behind it. She says, "I was pushed through plate glass windows and if I had not been in a relationship with this man, he would be in prison."

If the city does decide to take on the domestic abuse cases, Dombrowski hopes it's only until funding can be restored at the District Attorney's office. She says, "We've just jumped back 30 years into the dark ages, and it's very dark. The lights just went out in Topeka."

She says many times the misdemeanor charges get reduced to disorderly conduct and destruction of personal property, and she can't imagine how easy the abusers will have it in city courts. Dowbrowski says you can help domestic violence victims of Topeka by demanding more money for the District Attorney's office, so they can continue to protect the public.

UPDATE:Wednesday morning, Topeka Interim City Manager Dan Stanley said there is some thought being given to repealing the city ordinances to force the prosecution back on the county. He says it will then be up to the D.A. to prioritize what cases should be prosecuted. Stanley says he's concerned about what will happen to the individuals whose cases are not being prosecuted. He says, "We know of three cases where judges have released the people accused of domestic violence back out because it their understanding that the district attorney will not prosecute and so there may be more of these."

Topeka Police Officers are forwarding misdemeanor cases involving domestic violence to the District Attorney's Office. Stanley says the D.A.'s office has already turned away 30 cases. He believes the victims and their families are most affected.

Judge Vic Miller stood in the municipal courtroom, Monday afternoon, where he is the newest administrative judge of the Topeka Municipal Court. Miller was sworn in by Municipal Court Judge Lloyd Swartz at 9:30 a.m., Monday, city spokesman David Bevens said.

Topeka Municipal Court Administrative Judge Vic Miller already has been pointed at one task the city manager wants him to tackle — improving the court's collection of fees and fines.

The city is owed about $16 million in fines and fees, and interim city manager Dan Stanley would like to reduce that amount and improve the collection process for current and future cases.

Miller, who was sworn in by Municipal Judge Lloyd Swartz at 9:30 a.m. Monday, said he had a couple of discussions about the problem during the day.

"There are some things you can do, but yo have to look at the real world, too," he said.

A lot of people who commit crimes and find themselves in court don't have a lot of money, he said.

Eventually, unpaid fines and fees are turned over to a collection agency, Miller said, but as soon as the city does that it loses a percentage of the debt.

Miller, who said he had talked with Ebberts about the situation, said he will probably follow through on shopping the collection business but also said he would look at ways to enhance collections before the fines and fee were turned over to a collection agency.

Shawnee County District Court Judge Steven Ebberts, who Miller replaced on the municipal bench, was considering issuing a request for proposals for companies interested in the municipal court's collection business.

Regardless of how the problem is attacked, it will be impossible to collect all the $16 million now in arrears. The books on unpaid fines and fees have never been purged, which means some of that debt could date back to the beginning of Topeka Municipal Court.

City spokesman Dave Bevens said Monday the city's finance department indicated the court in 2010 took in $2,872,300 and spent $2,392,926. The expenses include the cost to operate the court, including probation, and house prisoners.

Miller said he didn't know how the dispute between the city and Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor over who would prosecuted misdemeanor crimes in the city would play out, but noted that wasn’t a court question as much at it is a prosecution question. Municipal court, he said, will handle the cases filed by city prosecutors.

A related issue is prosecution of domestic batteries, which the district attorney has been prosecuting.

There are a lot of programs and probationary requirements of people who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery, Miller said. He plans to meet with court services to learn more about what is involved in the post-conviction process.

Topeka Municipal Court doesn't have a lot of probation officers and may need more if it begins trying domestic battery cases, Miller said.

The city's newest judge didn't preside over any trials Monday but did attend docket call at the jail and in Municipal Court chambers with Swartz.

Most of the day, Miller said, was spent handling administrative details, getting connected to the computer and telephone systems and meeting the people he will be working with.

He said Swartz, a classmate at Washburn Law School, was very professional and that he looked forward to working with him and the court's staff.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Rossville man jailed after child beaten

Domestic dispute sends child to hospital, ends after standoff

PHIL ANDERSON/THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Officers from the Shawnee County Sheriff's Office, Kansas Highway Patrol and the Rossville Police Department responded to a domestic incident in which a man was taken into custody after a standoff Saturday morning in Rossville.

Rufus Jones, Jr., of Rossville, faces charges of attempted second degree murder after a domestic dispute left two children injured. He was arrested at a Rossville home following a standoff with police.

ROSSVILLE — A man who authorities said was involved in a domestic disturbance was taken into custody on suspicion of attempted second-degree murder after a brief standoff Saturday morning at a home in northwestern Shawnee County.

Shawnee County sheriff's deputies were sent about 10 a.m. to the Rossville city park on a report of an assault that occurred during an incident that involved a man, his wife and several children.

A Shawnee County Jail official identified the man as Rufus Lee Jackson Jr., 40, of Rossville.

Sheriff's deputies said the incident involved a child custody dispute.

Authorities said the woman and her children had gone to the Rossville Community Center after the assault, then were taken by sheriff's deputies to the Rossville Fire Department for observation.

Shawnee County sheriff's Cpl. Tim Kampsen said officers later went to a residence in the 500 block of Navarre, where the man involved in the incident had been located.

Kampsen said the man at first refused to come out of the residence. Sheriff's deputies then evacuated people in the immediate area as a precaution.

Kampsen said officers made contact with the man by cell phone. The man then voluntarily came out of the house and was taken into custody around 11 a.m. by the Rossville Police Department.

The man was being questioned at Rossville police headquarters at 12:20 p.m.

Meanwhile, two children were reported to have suffered minor injuries in the incident.

American Medical Response ambulance crews about 10:45 a.m. checked on a 16-year-old boy who had been reportedly struck in the face and kicked in the chest. The boy was said to be in good condition and didn't require hospital treatment.

About 11:10 a.m., an 8-year-old girl was taken by ambulance to a local hospital for evaluation. Kampsen said he didn't know the extent of her injuries.

Besides the Shawnee County Sheriff's Office and Rossville Police Department, the Kansas Highway Patrol responded to the scene.